Adobe Acrobat Reader



Download 243.19 Kb.
Page3/7
Date conversion29.03.2017
Size243.19 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7

SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: WHAT I MEAN IS THAT ORDINARILY ON YOUR BROWSER, IT'S A SEPARATE CONTRACT AND BILL THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY COME ON YOUR TELEPHONE BILL. SO IT'S EASY FOR US TO CONTACT THE UTILITIES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE. I'M NOT SURE I KNOW HOW THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WOULD TIE INTO EVERY BROWSER. BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT ONES.
SUP. ANTONOVICH: AND THAT'S A QUESTION I DON'T KNOW. BUT IT WOULD GIVE A LEVEL OF COMFORT THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS KNOW THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO AN ADDITIONAL TAX.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: I'M HAVING A PROBLEM [INAUDIBLE] PRACTICAL MATTER.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: AND I DON'T KNOW, EITHER. I'M AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE I'M NOT VERY LITERATE IN THIS STUFF. BUT ONE THING I DO KNOW THAT SOME OF THE CONNECTIONS THE COMPUTERS MAKE, USED TO BE MORE ON PHONE LINES, THAT'S LESS AND LESS THE CASE NOW, BUT THEY ARE THE CABLE, CABLES TELEVISION OR CABLES. AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A UTILITY USERS' TAX ON THAT. AT LEAST THERE WAS.
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: YOU'RE CORRECT. SAY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE A HOOK UP THROUGH A TELEPHONE SERVICE AND YOU HAVE AN ETHERNET HOOK UP OR YOU HAVE-- SOMEONE CAN EVEN HAVE AN OLD STYLE MODEM HOOK UP. YOU ARE PAYING TAX ON THAT PARTICULAR LINE. BUT WE'RE NOT PAYING TAX ON THE SEPARATE BROWSER SERVICE ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTERNET HOOK UP. WE ARE, THOUGH, JUST FOR THE CABLE ITSELF AND FOR USING YOUR T.V. CABLE SERVICE OR YOUR TELEPHONE SERVICE TO HOOK UP YOUR BROADBAND CONNECTION, THAT CONNECTION ITSELF IS BEING TAXED. BUT THE BROWSER'S A SEPARATE BILL ON YOUR TELEPHONE BILL OR YOUR CABLE BILL.

SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS INTENDING TO TAX A SEPARATE BROWSER BILL OR A SEPARATE, IF THERE WAS A SEPARATE, EMAIL BILL. BUT WHEN I TURN ON MY COMPUTER AND I'M BEING BILLED THROUGH THE CABLE COMPANY FOR THE TIME USING THEIR NETWORK, I COULD BE EMAILING, I COULD BE BROWSING, I COULD BE DOING WORDPERFECT, IT CAN BE DOING ANY NUMBER OF THINGS, THAT PART OF THE BILL FOR WHICH I'M USING THAT LINE--

C.E.O. FUJIOKA: THAT CONNECTION--
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: FOR CONNECTION PURPOSES, SHOULD BE TAXED LIKE ALL OTHER USE OF THAT CABLE IS TAXED. IF WE'RE TAXING CABLE, THEN WE OUGHT TO TAX CABLE FOR EVERYTHING. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ONE THING.
SUP. ANTONOVICH: JUST CLARIFYING THAT THE FEDERAL LAW APPLIES TO THE USERS' UTILITY TAX. THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: BUT I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT-- YOUR MOTION IS NOT THE FEDERAL LAW. IT IS NOT THE ACTUAL STATUTE LANGUAGE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FEDERAL LAW ACTUALLY SAYS. I THINK AS WE KNOW IT TODAY, EMAIL, BROWSER AND ALL THAT, I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT TAXABLE AND IT'S PRECLUDED BY FEDERAL LAW. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE TAX PEOPLE WHO CONNECT THROUGH A CABLE LINE? OR THROUGH A PHONE LINE. I MEAN, WE HAD A PHONE LINE WE USED FOR UP UNTIL VERY RECENTLY. WE WERE A LITTLE BEHIND THE TIMES, BUT WE DID USE A TELEPHONE LINE. AND I WAS PAYING THE CITY'S UTILITY USERS' TAX EVERY TIME I DIALED THAT PHONE. AND SO WAS MY WIFE. AND EVERY TIME SHE HOOKED UP, WE PAID WHATEVER THE BILL WAS, WE PAID 10 PERCENT. THAT'S WHAT THE CITY TAX IS.
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: I THINK THE DISTINCTION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONNECTION, WHAT IS USED TO CONNECT THAT SERVICE, VERSUS THE SERVICE ITSELF, THE EMAIL, THE BROWSER AND SO ON. BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, CURRENTLY FOR THE CONNECTION ALL OF US PAY A UTILITY USERS' TAX.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: CAN I SUGGEST WHAT YOU SUGGESTED A MINUTE AGO, WHICH IS, CAN WE HOLD THIS? CAN YOU FIND OUT WHAT WHAT THE CITY DID, HOW THEY ADDRESSED THIS AND MAYBE THERE'S AN ANSWER TO THIS? I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO GO FURTHER.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: ACTUALLY, THE BROWSER IS NEVER BILLED TO YOUR TELEPHONE LINE.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I KNOW. I UNDERSTAND. AND NEITHER IS THE EMAIL.

SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: RIGHT. IT'S NEVER BILLED.

SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: BUT THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE THAT SAYS "UPDATE THE ORDINANCE DEFINITIONS TO REQUIRE EQUAL TREATMENT OF TAXPAYERS, REGARDLESS OF TECHNOLOGY USED." IF IT'S NOT EMAIL, BROWSER OR THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S IN MIKE'S MOTION, WHAT IS THE TECHNOLOGY USED THAT ISN'T USED NOW? WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? I MEAN LET'S BE UP FRONT ABOUT IT. THIS IS WHAT THE CITY DID AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE TAKING THE 5 PERCENT TAX, LOWERING IT TO 4 1/2 PERCENT, BUT WE'RE BROADENING THE BASE. THAT'S WHAT THE CITY DID. THEY THOUGHT THEY'D MAKE MORE MONEY BY GOING FROM 10 PERCENT TO 9 1/2 PERCENT BECAUSE THE BASE ON WHICH THEY WOULD TAX WAS BIGGER. AND THEY'D GET ACTUALLY MORE THAN THEY WERE GETTING WHEN THEY WERE CHARGING 10 PERCENT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE THINK, WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED IS WE ARE GOING TO GET MORE MONEY ON THE 4 1/2 PERCENT TAX THAN WE'RE GETTING ON THE 5 PERCENT TAX. NOW, I WANT TO KNOW WHERE IS THE GROWTH IN THAT BASE COMING FROM? SOMEBODY'S GOT TO KNOW THAT, THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT'S THE BASIS UPON WHICH THIS IS BEING PROPOSED. SO IS THERE SOMEBODY? WHO?
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: WE'RE CHECKING RIGHT NOW.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: OKAY. BUT THAT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. AND WE'LL GET THAT ANSWERED. BUT ON THE ISSUE OF BROADENING THE BASE, WHO IS THE MAVEN ON THIS? RAY? DO YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN? IS STEVE CARNIVALY ON THIS?
RAY FORTNER: LET ME ASK. THERE IS AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT THAT WORKED ON THE ORDINANCE. LET ME SEE IF HE HAS AN UNDERSTANDING.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: IS HE HERE?
RAY FORTNER: YES, HE IS. WE CAN GET HIM UP HERE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: CAN WE GET HIM UP TO THE CENTER TABLE?

RAY FORTNER: THIS IS DON MAYNOR WHO IS AN ATTORNEY SPECIALIZING IN UTILITY USER TAX ORDINANCES.

SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: MR. MAYNOR, WHAT IS THE-- WHEN THE ORDINANCE REFERENCES REGARDLESS OF TECHNOLOGY USED," AM I CORRECT THAT THIS ANTICIPATES A BROADENING OF THE TAXABLE BASE? IS THERE SOME TECHNOLOGY THAT WE ARE NOT TAXING NOW THAT WOULD BE TAXED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE?
DON MAYNOR: WELL, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS LITIGATION IN THIS AREA. PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS WHAT THE CURRENT ORDINANCES APPLY TO. SO THIS MAKES CLEAR THAT IT'S TECHNOLOGY-NEUTRAL. WHEN YOU COMPARE YOUR EXISTING ORDINANCE WITH THIS NEW ONE, I THINK THIS WAS THE NATURE OF YOUR QUESTION, "WHAT'S NEW?" IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME THING WITH THE EXCEPTION OF YOU'RE GOING TO PICK UP TEXT MESSAGING, THAT'S A WIRELESS TEXT MESSAGING, WHICH IS INSTANT COMMUNICATION, PAGING AND SOMETHING CALLED PRIVATE COMMUNICATION SERVICES, WHICH IS LIKE A T1 LINE. SOME BUSINESSES WILL USE IT FOR BOTH VOICE AND HIGH SPEED DATA.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: ARE THOSE NOW PRECLUDED BY FEDERAL LAW?
DON MAYNOR: THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED UNDER YOUR EXISTING ORDINANCE.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I KNOW. BUT ARE THEY PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW? IS TAXING THOSE SERVICES, TEXT MESSAGING, PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS AND WHAT WAS THE THIRD ONE?
DON MAYNOR: PRIVATE COMMUNICATION SERVICES. YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE INTERNET.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: LET'S GO OVER THIS AGAIN. PRIVATE COMMUNICATION SERVICES, TEXT MESSAGING AND WHAT WAS THE THIRD ONE?
DON MAYNOR: PAGING.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: PAGING. ARE THOSE NOW TAXABLE UNDER FEDERAL LAW?
DON MAYNOR: WHEN YOU SAY THE FEDERAL LAW, DO YOU MEAN THE INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT?
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I GUESS THAT'S THE ONE.

DON MAYNOR: NO. THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THOSE ITEMS. THOSE ARE TELECOMMUNICATIONS. AND I MIGHT ADD ONE OTHER THING. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THESE DEFINITIONS BEING KIND OF COMPLICATED. BUT AROUND THE COUNTRY, STATES THAT IMPOSE TAXES ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN MODERNIZING THEIR STATUTES. AND THEY'VE COME UP WITH COMPARABLE DEFINITIONS, SO THAT THE INDUSTRY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THEY MEAN. THOSE ARE THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE PUT IN YOUR ORDINANCE. AND SO IT'S GENERALLY RECOGNIZED THAT IT'S COMPETITIVELY UNFAIR. IT'S UNFAIR TO TAXPAYERS IF YOU HAVE DIFFERENT RESULTS BASED ON THE TECHNOLOGY THAT'S USED. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TECHNOLOGIES WILL LEAD TO IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SAME SERVICES SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME REGARDLESS OF THE TECHNOLOGY.

SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: SO THE TEXT MESSAGING, THE PRIVATE COMMUNICATIONS AND THE PAGING--
DON MAYNOR: AND BY THE WAY --
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: LET ME FINISH MY QUESTION. ON THOSE THREE THINGS, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT-- HOW BIG OF AN INCREASE IN THE TAX BASE THAT WOULD BE?
DON MAYNOR: WE DON'T EXPECT IT TO BE VERY LARGE. WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS WITH CITIES FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS, AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN MUCH MORE THAN A 5-- WE ANTICIPATE A 5 TO 10 PERCENT INCREASE, BUT WE'RE NOT SEEING MAJOR INCREASES. THE PROBLEM WITH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, IN MEASURING THE INCREASE IN REVENUE OR DECREASE IS THEY KEEP CHANGING THE PRODUCT, AS WE ALL KNOW.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: A 10 PERCENT INCREASE ON WHAT? ON 4.5 PERCENT?
DON MAYNOR: AS A RESULT, YOU HAVE A VERY BROAD ORDINANCE NOW, BY THE WAY. SO AS A RESULT OF THESE CHANGES, I WOULD EXPECT AN INCREASE IN REVENUE. IF YOU DIDN'T CHANGE THE PERCENTAGES, JUST HAD THE SAME ORDINANCE, WENT TO THE NEW ONE, YOU WOULD PROBABLY SEE A 5 PERCENT INCREASE IN REVENUE AS A RESULT OF THESE NEW ITEMS.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: SO IF WE'RE RAISING $100 IN TAXES NOW, WE'LL CUT THAT BY 4 1/2 PERCENT. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN TO 95.50. AND THEN BY BROADENING THE CATEGORY, YOU SAID EARLIER 5 TO 10 PERCENT. SO 10 PERCENT IS EASIER FOR ME TO DIVIDE, 95.50, 10 PERCENT IS 9.5 BUCKS. SO IT WOULD TAKE IT TO $104 $105. SO YOU WOULD BE 5 PERCENT GREATER THAN YOU WERE RAISING UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. IF IT WAS 5 PERCENT, YOU'D BE AT ABOUT THE SAME.
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: IF I CAN HELP THERE, OUR CURRENT RATE IS 5 PERCENT. WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE IT TO 4.5, WHICH ACTUALLY REPRESENTS A 10 PERCENT DECREASE.

SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: RIGHT. AND IF I HEARD THIS GENTLEMAN CORRECTLY, HE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A POSSIBLE 5 PERCENT INCREASE. SO IN EFFECT WHEN THE DAY'S OVER, WE'LL BE COLLECTING, IN MY MIND, LESS THAN WHAT WE'VE COLLECTED-- WE'RE CURRENTLY COLLECTING. BECAUSE WITH THE 10 PERCENT DECREASE AND 5 PERCENT INCREASE, IT WOULD RESULT IN LESS. THE ONE QUESTION I'VE HEARD THAT-- I THINK I HEARD HIM SAY THAT THE BROADENING OF THE LANGUAGE WILL ALLOW US TO COLLECT ON THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SERVICES THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE MOTION PRESENTED BY SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH. SO AS THIS MOTION READS, HAVE YOU SEEN THIS? LOOK AT THIS. DOES THIS HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE TODAY?

DON MAYNOR: NO, NO. YOU WEREN'T TAXING THESE TYPE OF THINGS, INTERNET SERVICES BEFORE, THIS SAYS YOU DON'T INTEND TO IN THE FUTURE EVEN IF THE MORATORIUM GOES AWAY.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: SO TEXT MESSAGING DOES NOT FALL INTO ANY OF THOSE CATEGORIES?
DON MAYNOR: NO.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: INTO PAGING OR INTO EMAIL.
DON MAYNOR: THAT'S CORRECT.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: REALLY EXPENSIVE ON YOUR PHONE BILL.
DON MAYNOR: THE TEXT MESSAGING? IF YOU HAVE TEENAGE CHILDREN AND YOU DON'T BUY THE RIGHT SERVICE, IT CAN BE, BECAUSE I FOUND THAT OUT LAST MONTH.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I JUST REDID MY MATH. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S ABOUT THE SAME. 10 PERCENT INCREASE AFTER THE _____, WOULD BE ABOUT THE SAME. 5 PERCENT IT WOULD BE A LITTLE LESS. ALL RIGHT. CAN WE GET AN ANSWER ON THE CITY THING? YOU'RE GETTING THAT NOW, BILL? YOU'RE WORKING ON THAT? DO YOU WANT TO HOLD THIS?
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: DEBBIE CAN COME UP.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: DEBBIE HAS THE ANSWER?
DON MAYNOR: WHAT IS THE QUESTION REGARDING LOS ANGELES?
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: HAVE YOU READ MR. ANTONOVICH'S MOTION? YOU'VE HEARD IT?
DON MAYNOR: THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE EXACT WORDS. THEIR LANGUAGE IS VERY SIMILAR TO YOURS. THEY HAVE THAT REFERENCE THAT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT YOU DON'T TAX DIGITAL DOWNLOADS, WHICH ARE TYPICAL INTERNET-RELATED TYPES OF ACTIVITIES. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE SPECIFIC WORDS THAT YOU HAVE. YOUR WORDS GIVE A GREATER ASSURANCE THAT IF THE MORATORIUM GOES AWAY, YOU WOULDN'T TAX THAT. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES ON HOW THEY INTERPRET THEIR ORDINANCE FOR THE FUTURE, BUT THEY'VE NEVER TAXED THOSE TYPES OF SERVICES IN THE PAST. I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THEY WERE SEEKING TO TAX THEM IN THE FUTURE IF THE MORATORIUM WENT AWAY.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: OKAY, THANKS.

SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: I HOPE NO ONE MINDS. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION. ON THOSE T.V. PROGRAMS THAT SAY TEXTING AT THE USUAL RATE, DO THEY GET SOME KIND OF A PAYMENT FROM THE UTILITIES TO THOSE T.V. STATIONS? THEY SAY "IF YOU CALL IN TO VOTE, AND YOU TEXT IT TO THIS NUMBER, IT'LL BE AT YOUR USUAL RATE." WHAT I AM INTERESTED IN IS WHETHER OR NOT, IN FACT, THEY GET A PORTION OF THAT? DO YOU KNOW?

DON MAYNOR: IN TEXT MESSAGING? I'M NOT SURE. I KNOW ON THE WIRELESS SIDE THERE'S A CHARGE GOING BOTH WAYS. THE PERSON THAT RECEIVES THE TEXT MESSAGE AND THE END USER.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: I SEE. SO IN FACT THEY PROBABLY CAN COVER ALL THEIR COSTS BY PICKING UP THAT PORTION.
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: I UNDERSTAND THEY MAKE CONSIDERABLE MONEY FOR EACH OF THOSE TEXT VOTES
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: THEY CAN PICK IT UP ON THE TEXTS.
C.E.O. FUJIOKA: OH ABSOLUTELY.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: I SEE. JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SUP. KNABE: YOU'LL NEVER VOTE ON "AMERICAN IDOL" AGAIN. [LAUGHTER.]
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: I'LL STILL VOTE. I DON'T MIND THEM GETTING THE MONEY AND THEM ACTUALLY NOT PAYING ANYTHING.
SUP. KNABE: I'LL SECOND MR. ANTONOVICH'S MOTION.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: ARE YOU WAITING? SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY, DID YOU WANT TO WAIT ON THIS OR DO YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD?
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I THINK WE JUST GOT THE ANSWER. THAT WAS THE ANSWER.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. SO IS HIS AMENDMENT ACCEPTED?
SUP. KNABE: I SECONDED IT.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: I'M FINE WITH IT.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: SO THE MOTION IS ADOPTED AS AMENDED. YOU HAVE AN ITEM THAT WAS BEING HELD.
SUP. YAROSLAVSKY: 26-B. I THINK YOU HAD SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WANTED TO BE HEARD ON IT.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: GENEVIEVE CLAVREUL, ARNOLD SACHS, KATHLEEN OCHOA. AND KAREN MIMS. I SEE IT'S TAKING A WHILE FOR ANYONE TO COME FORWARD. THERE IS ACTUALLY FOUR SEATS HERE SO EVERYONE COULD COME FORWARD. GENEVIEVE, WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME? DR. CLAVREUL, I'M SORRY, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME?

DR. GENEVIEVE CLAVREUL: GOOD MORNING, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. YOU KNOW, I AM GLAD TO SEE THAT MOTION, BUT YOU KNOW, IT IS KIND OF A LITTLE BIT TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. WE SPENT ALMOST $1 MILLION WITH CAMDEN TO GET MANY OF THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOW UNDER SUSPICION BEING LOOKED AT. WE PAID 21 MILLION TO NAVIGANT, WE GOT WORD OF DR. CHERNOF THAT THEY HAD ALL BEEN REVIEWED. WE GOT THE WORD OF MR. FUJIOKA THAT THEY WERE ALL VETTED. I CANNOT BELIEVE IT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN IT'S JUST SO ABSURD THAT WE ARE NOT KEEPING TRACK OF WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT I THINK IT HAS A LOT TO DO ALSO WITH THE BEHAVIOR OF THIS BOARD. YOU ACCEPT SUBSTANDARD BEHAVIOR OVER AND OVER AGAIN. PEOPLE ARE NOT BEING LIABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, INCLUDING YOURSELVES. AND I THINK IT'S ABOUT TIME YOU START TO LOOK AT THAT. I MEAN LIKE RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE AN INTERIM DIRECTOR OF D.H.S., DR. SCHUNHOFF, WHO A FEW YEARS AGO SAID IT WOULD BE A DAUNTING TASK TO ACCOUNT FOR $83 MILLION. WHAT KIND OF EXAMPLE YOU ARE SENDING TO THE RANK AND FILE? I THINK IT HAS BEEN A CONSISTENCY IN THIS COUNTY TO NOT WANTING TO DEAL WITH ISSUES. AND FOR A YEAR, YOU HAVE _____ MR. CHUCK HENRY, WHO WORKED HERE WHO, WAS NOT H.A.D., TO TELLING PEOPLE HE WAS H.A.D. AND NOTHING WAS DONE. ACTUALLY WHEN HE WAS FINALLY LET GO, THERE WAS NOTHING IN HIS FILE OF ALL TERRIBLE ACTIONS HE DID DURING HIS TENURE. THE SAME WITH DR. GARTHWAITE WHO CONSTANTLY REFERRED TO HIMSELF AS A PHYSICIAN WHEN HE WAS NOT LICENSED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND YOU DID NOTHING BECAUSE HE LACKED THE TITLE. IT'S TIME YOU GET SOME BACKBONES. AND WHEN SOMETHING MISBEHAVE YOU TAKE ACTION. I DON'T CARE IF THEY BELONG TO THE UNION OR NOT, IF THEY DON'T BEHAVE, THEY SHOULD BE GONE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: MR. SACHS? NO, I WANT YOU TO GO FIRST. YOU WERE FIRST. YOU'RE FIRST.
ARNOLD SACHS: GOOD MORNING AGAIN, ARNOLD SACHS. I ALSO APPRECIATE THE MOTION, BUT I SEE NO-- NOTHING IN THE MOTION TO RECOMMEND ANY KIND OF PUNITIVE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN. AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S THE EXCEPTION NOT THE RULE, IT SEEMS, AT M.L.K. BECAUSE YOU HAVE FOUR OTHER HOSPITALS WITHIN THE COUNTY. AND NONE OF THEM SEEM TO SUFFER FROM THE CONSTANT REVIEWS, CONSTANT BREAKDOWN IN PROCESSES THAT AFFECT THIS COUNTY. IT'S ALMOST LIKE THIS HAS BEEN THE BLACK SHEEP OF THE FAMILY AND IT'S TREATED AS SUCH. AND JUST TO BE A MONEY-MAKING OPPORTUNITY, WHERE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS GARNER MAXIMUM FUNDING. WITH THE $300 MILLION, IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HADN'T BAILED ON THE $300 MILLION, THIS PROCEDURE JUST WOULDN'T -- NONE OF THESE HEARINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN HELD. THIS PROCEDURE JUST WOULD HAVE KEPT GOING AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN STATUS QUO AS IT'S BEEN FOR THE LAST FIVE, SIX, SEVEN YEARS PRIOR TO THEM SAYING "HEY WAIT A MINUTE, NOBODY'S TAKING ANY ACTION. WE NEED TO STEP UP." THEY STEPPED UP. WHY DOESN'T THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STEP UP? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR ATTENTION AND YOUR ANSWERS.
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: KATHY?
KATHY OCHOA: GOOD AFTERNOON, BEFORE I PROCEED I WAS INTERESTED IN KNOWING THAT THERE WAS ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS SO I MIGHT MODIFY ANY COMMENTS I HAVE?
SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: I THINK MAYBE YOU SHOULD SPEAK AND THEN WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION.

KATHY OCHOA: OKAY. THAT SOUNDS FINE. I MEAN TYPICALLY WE SPEAK AFTER THE BOARD GOES, BUT THAT'S FINE. SUPERVISOR YAROSLAVSKY, YOU WEREN'T HERE LAST WEEK, BUT WE ARE VERY HAPPY THAT YOU HAVE INTRODUCED THIS MOTION. WE, TOO, CONCUR THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ACCURATE INVENTORY OF WHO WORKS AT KING AND THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISMS TO ENSURE THAT THE WHOLE H.R. PROCESS IS WORKING, NOT ONLY AT THAT FACILITY BUT ACROSS OUR SYSTEM. WE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER SOME FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS TO YOUR MOTION. THEY INCLUDE, FOR ITEM NUMBER. 1 THAT WE ADD THE LANGUAGE WHERE "WE INVESTIGATE THE RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ALL COUNTY DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED IN THE PERSONNEL REVIEW OF THE 1602 M.L.K. EMPLOYEES--" THIS IS THE NEW LANGUAGE-- "PRIOR TO THE TRANSFERS AND THEREAFTER, INCLUDING ACTIONS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED AUGUST '08 MITIGATIONS." AND WE MAKE THIS REQUEST BECAUSE MANY OF THE SYSTEMS THAT BROKE DOWN DURING THE 1600 EVALUATIONS OBVIOUSLY HAVE NOT BEEN CORRECTED. YOU'RE ASKING FOR A FULL ACCOUNTING OF WHAT WENT WRONG, YET ON THE OTHER HAND YOU HAVE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN GETTING THINGS WRONG THE FIRST TIME MOVING FORWARD ON A MITIGATION TO MEET AN AUGUST 31ST DATE. WE WOULD LIKE FURTHER TO MODIFY YOUR MOTION TO IDENTIFY THE TIME AT WHICH THE DEPARTMENTS BECAME AWARE OF THOSE M.L.K. EMPLOYEES SITTING AGAINST THE WRONG ITEM AS COMPARED TO THEIR FUNCTIONAL TITLES. WHAT WERE THE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO DEAL WITH THOSE EMPLOYEES BY WHICH DEPARTMENTS AND WHAT STEPS ACTUALLY WERE AND WERE NOT TAKEN? IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE TAKING YOUR POINT, TOO, ON LIVE SCAN, AND EXTENDING IT TO INCLUDE THAT BODY OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE SITTING OFF OF THE WRONG ITEM. FOR EXAMPLE, THE MITIGATIONS ARE TRIGGERED BY A SET OF ITEMS, MEANING THAT WE COULD HAVE AN N.A. MITIGATED TO RANCHO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHO IS ACTUALLY AN INSTITUTIONAL HELPER FROM A FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE. THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE ASKING: "WHY DID WE GET SOMEBODY WHO CAN'T PERFORM THE N.A. FUNCTIONS?" OR WE CAN GET-- HERE'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE-- SUPERVISOR ANTONOVICH, YOU MIGHT GET A CLINICAL LAB SCIENTIST OR YOU MIGHT THINK YOU'RE GETTING A CLINICAL LAB SCIENTIST 2 IN THE MITIGATIONS HEADED OVER TO OLIVE VIEW, BUT INSTEAD YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH SOMEBODY WHOSE FUNCTIONAL PRACTICE IS AS A PHLEBO TECH 1. AND SO THESE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF WHY WE'D LIKE TO EXTEND THAT CONCEPT AROUND LIVE SCAN TO INCLUDE THIS. WE'D LIKE ALSO TO ADD TO POINT NUMBER. 4, "ANALYZE THE FAILURES IN MAINTAINING AN ACCURATE LIST OF KING M.A.C.C. EMPLOYEES SINCE THE SEPTEMBER '07 MITIGATIONS." WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN WEEKLY MEETINGS FOR SEVERAL MONTHS WITH THE DEPARTMENT, WITH VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. WE ASKED THE QUESTION: "WHO WORKS HERE? AND WHAT DO THEY DO?" AND WE'RE UNABLE TO GET AN ANSWER TO THAT. YET IT'S OUR FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE'S ANY MITIGATION THAT WE'RE ALL PLAYING BY THE SAME SET OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE RULES THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A VERY LONG TIME. AND BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE US WITH THE LIST OF ACCURATE EMPLOYEES, WE THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY THOSE SUCH LISTS AREN'T AVAILABLE. WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET A CLEAR ANSWER OTHER THAN, EVERYBODY IS WORKING TOWARD GETTING A GOOD LIST. I ASSUME THE LAST GOOD LIST WE HAD WAS SEPTEMBER '07, BUT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN THAT KIND OF DATA. AND WE KNOW IT. WE'VE EXPRESSED IT MANY TIMES AROUND THAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY PRECLUDE YOU FROM MOVING FORWARD ON THE AUGUST '08 MITIGATIONS IN GOOD FAITH. NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ADD THAT THEREFORE, THAT YOU DELAY THE PROPOSED AUGUST 31ST MITIGATIONS, WHICH IS ABOUT 140 PEOPLE, UNTIL WE ARE SURE THAT THE THINGS THAT WENT WRONG IN AUGUST-- LAST YEAR IN SEPTEMBER '07 AND THAT YOUR CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED SINCE THEN UNTIL TODAY, AND WE HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE THAT THERE IS A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO GET THIS RIGHT AND THEN MOVE FORWARD. THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN IS THAT WE SPENT ALL OF THIS TIME IDENTIFYING WHAT WENT WRONG IN SEPTEMBER '07 ONLY TO COME BACK AND HURRIEDLY REPEAT THE SAME PROBLEMS IN AUGUST '08. THAT WOULD BE A GREAT DISSERVICE TO THE PATIENTS THAT WE SERVE WHO EXCEPT AN N.A. TO SHOW UP AT RANCHO AND INSTEAD GET AN INSTITUTIONAL HELPER. SO ON THE LIST QUESTION, I'M GOING TO DO A LITTLE SEGUE FOR MY COLLEAGUE HERE.

SUP. BURKE, CHAIR: THERE'S A QUESTION FROM SUPERVISOR KNABE.
SUP. KNABE: WHETHER YOU DO THIS NOW OR MAKE IT A SEPARATE MOTION IS ONE THING, BUT I WOULD NOT WANT TO GET BOGGED DOWN INTO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE NEED THOSE ANSWERS. BUT CERTAINLY YOU'RE NOT USING THIS TO DEAL WITH THE DISCIPLINE AND THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUES?
KATHY OCHOA: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
SUP. KNABE: WE DO NOT WANT TO GET THESE TWO ISSUES CONFUSED.
KATHY OCHOA: ABSOLUTELY NOT. BUT AS LONG AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT WENT WRONG POST-SEPTEMBER, I MEAN OBVIOUSLY IT'S IN THIS CONTEXT OF LIKE, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE SAT AS THE STAFF AND SAID, "WHAT COULD BE WORSE?" AND WE ACTUALLY HAD A COUPLE OF IDEAS, ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THEY WERE IN FACT ACCURATE ONCE WE READ THE L.A. TIMES. SO, NO, WE ARE IN NO WAY SAYING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD-- WE'RE SAYING--
SUP. KNABE: I DON'T WANT THIS, WHATEVER WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IS TO CONFUSE OR TO COVER UP WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED WITH SOME OF THESE.
KATHY OCHOA: ABSOLUTELY NOT. I'M OFFENDED THAT YOU WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD SUPPORT ANY--
SUP. KNABE: WELL, I DON'T WANT TO OFFEND YOU, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE TOTALLY SEPARATE.
KATHY OCHOA: I KIND OF DRAFTED IT SO THAT IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE PROCESS AROUND THE LIVE SCAN. I EVEN SPOKE EARLIER TO STAFF SAYING, "WHO IS GOING TO BE ACTUALLY ACCOUNTABLE ONCE WE FIND OUT WHAT WENT WRONG?" I MEAN I THINK THAT'S MISSING. SO I KIND OF ARTICULATED THESE SUGGESTIONS, SUPERVISOR KNABE, SO AS TO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE LIVE SCAN PROCESS BUT TO LOOK AT--
SUP. KNABE: I HAVEN'T SEEN-- I JUST HEAR YOU TALKING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO CLEAR-CUT LINES.

KATHY OCHOA: ABSOLUTELY NO CONFUSION THERE. WE HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL LISTS FROM THE DEPARTMENTS OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. WE HAD REQUESTED, BECAUSE THEY WERE UNABLE TO PROVIDE US WITH A LIST OF WHO WORKED AT KING, WE SAID, "WELL GOOD. GIVE US A LIST OF WHO WORKED IN OCTOBER AND WHO WORKED THERE IN MAY '08." THIS WAS IN JUNE. "AND LET US RUN OUR OWN AND SEE WHAT WE COME UP WITH." RIGHT? WELL, WE GOT A HARD COPY-- WE GOT TWO HARD COPIES. ONE OF WHICH WAS NINE PAGES SHORTER THAN THE OTHER. AND WHEN WE FINALLY ASKED FOR THE DATA, WE GOT THE DATA ON A C.D.-R.O.M. THAT WASN'T ACCURATELY BURNED. OKAY. MISTAKE. LET'S GET THAT FIXED.


1   2   3   4   5   6   7


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page